1 230) wp794-99.doc
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPEL ATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.794 OF 1999
Kalpana Koyama (Kalpana R. Ghatge),
residing at 16, Chateau Marine,
Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 020. ..Petitioner.
V/s.
1. Mrs. Vatsalaraje R. Ghatge
residing at 16, Chateau Marine,
Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 020.
2. Ms. Kavita R. Ghate,
residing at 16, Chateau Marine,
Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 020. ..Respondents.
None for the Petitioner.
Ms.Namrata Vinod I/b. M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent
Nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : 1 JUNE, 2017 FINAL ORDER The matter is called out for final hearing as the petition is ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2017 00:28:56 ::: 2 230) wp794-99.doc specifically listed for final hearing in summer vacation.
2. The present petition is filed by one of the daughters (original Defendant No.1) thereby challenging order dated 29 August, 1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai whereby the eviction order was issued. This Court, after hearing the Petitioner in person and the Respondents, while admitting the petition has granted the protection to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, has been in possession of the tenanted premises along with her sister Kavita (original Plaintiff No.2) and mother Mrs.Vatsalaraje (original Plaintiff No.1). Learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent Plaintiffs, who have filed the suit against the Petitioner because of family dispute, makes a statement that Vatsalaraje Raje expired on 9 June, 2009 and Respondent No.2 Kavita, sister of Petitioner moved out of the tenanted premises since long. The Petitioner is in possession of the premises in view of the protection granted by this Court since 1999. There is no challenge to the entire proceedings by the original landlord / owner. In view of this position, there is no objection from ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2017 00:28:56 ::: 3 230) wp794-99.doc any side, for the Petitioner to occupy the premises and continue to be in possession till the final decision of the suit.
3. Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the view that there is not point in keeping the petition pending as the Petitioner (Kalpana), who is in possession of the premises, will continue to retain the possession till the appropriate proceedings, if any, initiated by the owner / landlord. So far as the present family dispute and in view of the fact of not pressing the proceedings against the Petitioner by the original Plaintiffs, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and ordered accordingly.
4. The present petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a) by setting aside the impugned order only. So far as the other prayers are concerned, let that be decided in the main proceedings which are stated to be pending till this date. It is made clear that the Petitioner is entitled to continue to retain the possession till the suit is finally decided. The Petitioner shall continue to pay the necessary charges which is stated to be paid by her regularly i.e. electricity, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2017 00:28:56 ::: 4 230) wp794-99.doc maintenance, etc. if any. I am inclined to dispose of this petition even though the Petitioner in person is not appearing and in view of the statement recorded and as I am allowing the petition and granting protection, as stated above in favour of the Petitioner.
5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2017 00:28:56 :::